Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The June newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Tetricus I • Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Genghis Khan • Bradley Winslow Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) Good article nominees Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Meligalas • Gubir shootdown • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War • HMS Menace (1915) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • CSS General Polk • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • HMS Glenmore (1796) • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • Tim Hughes (soldier) • John S. McCain Sr. • HMS Trent (1796) • Eleanor of Castile • Battle of Durazzo (1376) • Charles Upham Good article reassessments Galatian War • Franklin's lost expedition • Justinian I • Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division • Civil War token Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,570) • only work on referencing and citation (43,150) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,713) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,684) • work on structure (31,791) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,168) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,775) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (953) • assessment as lists (120) • project tags fixed (5) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (5) • task forces added (284) • attention to task force coverage (657)

Reward Board offer within our special project's scope

The offer is to "get Kriegsmarine to GA, then FA status". WP:SHIPS barnstar up for grabs here :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken it up, FAYGI. (for all you guy's information) Buggie111 (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Alaska class

I looked through the talk pages, and didn't see any consensus on including or excluding the Alaska class - the only real comment I saw actually seemed to favour inclusion. (And, according to the article, they were originally intended to carry CC hull numbers...). The Alaska class cruiser page is also at FA already. Should this class be included? - The Bushranger (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see the argument here: thier guns are too large to be on par with heavy cruisers, armored to withstand impacts of its own heaviest guns, created as a response to the German "pocket battleships", and thier roles was similar that of the Iowas (escorting aircraft carriers, bombardment, cruiser killers). The arguments at Alaska class cruiser#"Large cruisers" or "battlecruisers"? lean me toward battlecruiser (I prefer to classify something as it is rather than how it was designed or labelled), though I'd like to hear more arguments to the contrary (I know that at least one of you can play devil's advocate). bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have battleships and battlecruisers; why not the cruiser killers? I mean, the Alaskas are roughly on par with the Dutch Design 1047, and that article is included. Tangent thought: I really need to rewrite the Alaska class article with stuff from Friedman. Maybe this summer. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Both of the Soviet-era BC's had their genesis in cruiser-killer designs, so I don't really see it as much of a stretch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Most references I've seen call them 'large cruisers', so I don't think that they're in-scope. If these ships are brought into the project's scope then the Soviet Kirov class battlecruisers need to be as well as they're also called both 'battlecruisers' and 'cruisers' in references. Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, like I said, they were originally to be CCs, and they seem to fit the classic definition of a battlecruiser. And personally I think the Kirovs should be included too. But then, I'm both a battlecruiser junkie and an inclusionist. :P - The Bushranger (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Three-step test

Last night while staying up late I pondered the issue, and came up with a three-step "sniff test" that I applied to the Alaska class, to see if it qualified as a battlecruiser for inclusion.

To wit:

1. How was it designated, and how was it referred to at the time? Officially, the Alaskas were designated CB, which the U.S. Navy defined as 'Large Cruiser'. Well, first, this is a different and distinct category from the "Heavy Cruisers" (CA), which they're often described as just being overgrown versions of. In addition, they appear to have originally have been intended to have designations in the "CC" series, from CC-7 ownwards - an extension of the 'proper' Battlecruiser category after the Lexingtons. And even "CB" itself can only be logically decoded, despite its official defintion, as 'Cruiser, Battle'. Finally, we have Jane's Fighting Ships. Which, while admittedly not the most definitive of authorities, is certainly one of the best-known, and would have been even more so at the time. Which classes the Alaskas as Battle Cruisers, groups them with the Battleships, and says explicitly:
   
   All ordered in Sept. 1940 and officially described as "Large Cruisers". In fact, they are the first battle cruisers to be ordered by any Navy since the Washington Conference met in 1921.
   
   On point 1, therefore, the Alaska class seems to qualify as a Battlecruiser.
2. How do they compare to other ships? The Alaskas are, in design, indeed similar to a scaled-up "Treaty Cruiser" - but they're twice the size, or more. In addition, if you compare them to the Design 1047 battlecruisers, which are included, they are larger and more heavily armed. Alaska, indeed, is not only comparable in size to, but outguns, SMS Scharnhorst. They're also (I believe) the largest non-battleship, non-aircraft-carrier surface combatants to be built post-Washington Treaty.
   On point 2, therefore, the Alaska class seems to qualify as a Battlecruiser.
3. Does it look like a duck? Or, more specifically, does it meet the 'traditional' definition of a battlecruiser? Alaska has a capital-ship calibre main armament, but has a cruiser's standard of protection - and cruiser speed, although that particular factor is less definitive with the onset of fast battleships like the Iowas. Although they do seem very much to the fast battleships as the "classic" battlecruisers were to the dreadnoughts. So, by this standard, the Alaskas seem to be both waddling and quacking, and therefore on point 3 qualifying as Battlecruisers.

Now, I don't mean to come across as argumentative or anything like that, it's just that it's my opinion that the Alaskas fit the scope of the project. (And that the Kirovs do too, scoring 2.5 on "BR's Battlecruiser Quacks-Like-A-Duck Test".) But if it's the opinion of y'all that they don't, I'll roll with the consensus. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are making good points here. :-) I think that, barring significant opposition, the Alaskas ought to be added. On the flip side, the Kirovs should not; IMHO, they score a .5 on this test for #1. The Russians refer to them as "Heavy Nuclear(-Powered) Missile Cruiser," and they aren't really 'traditional' battlecruisers because they have missiles, not guns.

The intent of this project, as I see it, is to bring all pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts to FA/GA. This includes battlecruisers because they were built as part of the dreadnought revolution. We exclude ships like the Greek Hydras and the Nordic/Dutch coast-defense ships—even though they are described in sources as "battleships"—simply because they don't meet the definition of being a battleship. The same logic applies here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• sails a Kirov across the discussion, quacking* :P I can see your point there, no worries. It's just I guess I've always thought of the Kirovs as The Most Awesome Modern Ships Ever since I was a kid and first found out about 'em, so I'm a bit partial to 'em. - The Bushranger (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That begs another question: do we have any other agreed "litmus test" distinctions between BBs, CCs, and other ships? Guns, size, and armor? bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there's no further comment, I'll probably add the Alaskas to the main page in the morning. Perhaps the Kirovs could call under Phase 5? (And maybe then the Arsenal ship, too, since it was apparently proposed to carry on the BB hull number sequence... ;) ) - The Bushranger (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Along with that, I'd add Design B-65 cruiser to the battlecruisers section. Buggie111 (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, like you say, phase 5 at minimum is assured. Even if we are on the fence about it now, it definitely is so strongly related that we can include it in the misc articles, much like the Kirovs and arsenal ship. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So should we just add the ships listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Large cruiser classes? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I say yes... Well, can we all agree that those are all battlecruisers in everything but name? Or do we need to refine the distinguishing line a bit more? bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a battlecruiser by any other name shoots as well... and the proposed List of post-Washington Naval Treaty battlecruisers there would be quite useful, too, I think. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So where do the Courageous class large light cruisers fit? The Washington Treaty counted them as capital ships which is why all three were converted to carriers. I'm probably going to split the class article into two, one each for their role as LLCs and CVs, much like the Lexington-class articles are split. Which reminds me, why do we have the Lexington-class CV article as part of our project when we have the BC article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

HMS Incomparable

I cleaned this up a little, but I'm not at all sure that this is honestly notable since it appears to have been strictly Fisher's paper project. Roberts, Campbell and Burt don't even mention this so I'm fairly certain that the DNC never even put pen to paper to actually design it. To my mind that speculative nature puts it beyond the pale of our project as even the Dutch, German and Japanese projects that we do include actually had a naval architect invest design time (with the possible exception of the late-war German projects). What do y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if no naval architect even designed it and it was only in Fisher's head, it probably isn't very notable and probably deserves just a small section in his article. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, even the L 20 α class battleship, which was about as late-war as anything the Germans designed, at least got into the design study stage (assuming we're talking about WWI). Regardless, I wouldn't object to not including Incomparable, given the nature of the project. Parsecboy (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As this ship doesn't seem to have ever gotten beyond the rough design concept stage, I think that it would be fine to leave it out. It seems notable enough for an article though (the concept of a giant battleship with only a 10 year planned lifespan is alarming!) Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's definately interesting. With three solid sources, I'd say that yeah, it's worth an article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What 3 sources? The article itself only references Breyer. The 3 sources I mentioned earlier don't reference the project at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly say she deserves an article, seeing as there were drawings of the ship and draft specifications, at least. Whether it's part of the project though, I dunno, is it a BC or the ultimate LLC? - The Bushranger (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see that one of them only references Yamato, but the web source still counts. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• so...Phase V for Incomparable, then? >_> - The Bushranger (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jane's Battleships of the 20th Century

Buggie111's work on the Regina Elena-class BBs has caused me notice that the stats for these ships in Jane's differ significantly from those in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships. I've never seen this, but I have seen the equivalent airplane book which is nothing more that reprinted extracts of contemporary volumes with huge reliability issues. Does anyone else have this or has seen it. Can anyone compare it to a source of known reliability like Burt, Friedman or Raven & Roberts? If there is a problem, then I guess we'll have to post a notice of its unreliability so as not to confuse editors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to see about order this tomorrow, but if it is going to be unreliable then I think I will postpone that move and see about ordering other more reliable books. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Jane's is, as I understand it, good for "color" and general information, but tended to print "official data" which can be wildly inaccurate, either by accident (reprinting "official" sources from abroad) or design (i.e. British Crown censorship). There's a reason people in the Business call it Jane's Frightening Slips. When it comes to commentary, it's admirable and a good period source, and the line drawings are great, but the statistics? Better grab the salt shaker. - The Bushranger (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Minas Geraes

I just checked out the stats for Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes' run in the selected anniversaries section on the 17th; she received almost 28k hits over the 17th and 18th. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

State of articles about incomplete batlteships

As I was wandering around project page today, I saw a comment next to USS Washington by a user named Chris141496. His edits migth be in good faith, but I personally think that we should redirect all articles about non-complete battleships. If Tosa, which is currently in ed's sandbox, coes out shining, then we might do somthing differently. Also, someone sould give a friendly pointer on Chris141496 's talkpage about not having enough notabulity or refs to create and article like USS South Dakota (BB-49), for which he currently has a user subpage dedicated. Buggie111 (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on the ship—both Tosa and Washington were used for ordnance testing, so even though they were incomplete, there is enough information on them to warrant articles (ships like USS Hawaii (CB-3) are notable too). Ships like South Dakota, USS Constellation (CC-2), or USS Samoa (CB-6) are different in that they were started but scrapped on the slipway, meaning that articles on them will be about one paragraph max. On the flip side, his subpage would make for a great para in the main class article! :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect BB-47 and Tosa, absolutely not. If USS Illinois (BB-65) can become a FA, then Washington and Tosa certainly can. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I was jsut wondering where the sources for Washington would come from. I get it. Buggie111 (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone got Russian and Soviet Battleships by Stephen McLaughlin?

Since I don't have e-mail enabled, I'm just asking for someone with that book to round out User:Buggie111/ Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895). I don't know how useful it would be, but I think it should give somthing. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the essential reference to Russian BBs. I should have my copy out of storage in a couple of weeks and will then resume work on the rest of the Russian BBs that I haven't yet gotten to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Along with that, could you see if you or your library (cost on Amazon is 255$) have Warships of the Imperial Russian Navy Volume 1: Battleships by V.M.Tomitch. It seems like it also would be useful. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Online books in full, including Friedman(!)

Scribd.com is an interesting site. Search for "battleship," and you'll get many amateur powerpoints, Google Books-like limits for some books (the ones uploaded by publishing companies) ... and some copyvio'd books from normal users. Anyway, enjoy; be sure to save them in case they are deleted.

• Friedman's, U.S. Battleships: A Design History, the definitive book on this topic: [1]
• Skulski, The Battleship Fuso, [2]
• The German Navy Handbook, [3]
• Arms, Economics and British Strategy From Dreadnoughts to Hydrogen Bombs, [4]
• Fm 30-58 MILITARY INTELLIGENCE IDENTIFICATION OF JAPANESE NAVAL VESSELS 1941, [5]
• Perry's Our Navy in the War [WWI], [6]
• Tully's Battle of Surigao Strait, [7]
• Excerpts from the Indiana University Press on various WWII battles, [8]
• This holds many books on air warfare, [9]

Tangent point: Parsec, take a look at this :D —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the heads up. Looking through Friedman fully for the first time though, I'm struck by the poor nature of the referencing and a less than objective writing style (describing decisions as "criminal", for example). Friedman is no D. K. Brown or Raven and Roberts. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The referencing is all in the back, I think—he used official papers almost exclusively. If you can look past the non-objective writing style, it's by far the best book on U.S. battleship designs. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, "poor nature". I have some experience of the General Board hearings referred to in Chapter Eight. They are an absolute nightmare to go through, and it certainly would have behooved NF to have been more specific with the details. But what, ho! As you say, there's nothing better. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As a note, external links to copyright violating website (including using the url= tag in references sections) should not be included in articles. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, Nick. We can use this as a library resource, but not a web source. But for the most part, we are already actively trying to end our reliance on the web sources, and I consider them a nice addendum to published books. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And my new copy of Friedman is even now rumbling towards home! Handy though, if I'm on the road.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already got one from my local library, to be put to use on the Maine class. Buggie111 (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Another addition.

Would K-1000 battleship qualify? I know it's about a hoax, but it's still about a battleship. Thoughts?

Given that it was a deliberate deception operation, I think it's out of scope. Including it would be a bit like adding HMS Centurion (1911) to the King George V class ;) Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. How's Cenutrion a hoax? Buggie111 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

She was a battleship, but she only pretended to be HMS Anson (of the World War 2 King George V class - I just noticed that she was part of the World War 1 KGVs!). Fleet tender would have been a better comparison. Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say K-1000 qualifies - but as part of Phase V. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say what Bushranger did. bahamut0013^words_deeds 02:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet another addition

I was wondering what will be the elad article for the final topic? Capital ship? Battleship? List of battleships? List of battlecruisers, Dreadnought, Battlecruiser? Some of these are at FA but others may need work. I'm confused. Buggie111 (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say Battleship and Battlecruiser. Capital ship is too broad, including bird farms and earlier stuff. Dreadnought and pre-dreadnaught should be subtopics of battleship and I am not really sure where the lists fit in.Yoenit (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that Battleship is fairly obvious. We can use battlecruiser as a sub-topic. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

USS Recruit

USS Recruit is something that should probably be added to Phase V (and is, right now as I type, up for DYK!). - The Bushranger (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes... though I have to ask: where the hell did it wind up? It's not like it's easy to overlook a warehouse full of cut and shaped wood. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Alas, I couldn't google up a peep about it after its "departure" for Coney Island. Finding out what happened would probably require digging around in the dead-tree archives of the local newspapers aroudnd there, I'd suspect. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you try Google News' news archive? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and searching for '"USS Recruit"' turns up...absolutely nothing at all. Ditto for '"Landship Recruit"', 'Battleship "Coney Island"' and 'Battleship "Luna Park"'. - The Bushranger (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Post-Montanas

I'm wondering about the note on List of battleships of the United States Navy that says "even battleships BB 72 through BB 78 were projected in 1942. Armament was to consist of 8 × 18 in (4x2), 20 x 5 in (10x2). The project did not proceed past the drawing stage; none were ordered." This should have an article at some point, shouldn't it? - The Bushranger (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This book, from the Naval Institute, seems to contradict that. It says there were speculations that the Navy was considering 20" gunned battleships with #s 72-78, but it simply wasn't the case. Parsecboy (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Did this ever into a realistic planning phase? I think it would be a hard sell that a concept without a name or project is notable enough. I imagine that the brass would have waited until most of the Montanas had keels laid before moving on to the next big thing and giving it any serious attention. It might be worth just developing the various post-Montana concepts (like Arsenal ship) in the list article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as the book I linked above is concerned, this alleged project was an invention of the press. I'd say it shouldn't even be mentioned in the list article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspected that. Ah well, it's good for dreaming "what-if"... - The Bushranger (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything mentioned in any other source? bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship

After tearing through every library I can find here in El Paso I am throwing in the towel for non-net sources; I simply can not locate any here to use for the purpose of improving the article. I will see what I can do with internet sources, but I make no promises for improvement from what I can find online; if the other online sources were of limited use the best I maybe able to do is GA-class for now. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try my best on Google Books and at my libraries. Good luck. Buggie111 (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the short run, GA is all we need to keep the FT alive. We can take a while to get it back to FA if we need to. Parsecboy (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the books here seem fine, except the last one. (:))

The Sumrall book is probably the most important source. Have you tried ILL? I get a lot of stuff through the Denver Public Library for free. Should be worth checking into.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tried ILL, but I have a problem at the moment: I am not a student at UTEP (not yet anyway), and I have therefore forfeited library privileges, and the EP libraries require a fee that I haven't got the money for to obtain a card for ILL related matters. That leaves two options open: the net (and since time is a factor here that's likely going to be one I rely on heavily for the short term), and book stores for purchase of new books (which as I note I haven't got the money for at the moment). With the weekend upon us I do believe that I should have some free time to start net based R&D for the article, but that won't do much good unless we all pull weight for the article. Additionally, I have been so focused on offline material that I have fallen behind on the ACR reviewing; and that really isn't good since so few actually participate. I'm gonna have to work on catching up there first before moving onto the Iowa-class article. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I almost hate to suggest it, but the Iowa-class has a shorter fuse than ACR; but your priorities as lead coordinator are your own perrogative.

Of course, if you have need of a specific book, I will gladly pimp myself out for the project again. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've used woldcrat on the Sumerall, and I'd like to ask you: Fancy going to Munich? Buggie111 (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No need, there's one 47 miles from me. See [10]--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You're looking at an odd edition. Try this one. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My imagination, or are both of those URLs the same? Anyway, the Sumerall book is in Greeneville, and I will be making a trip up there to see the OB as soon as my wife concieves (yes, it's true: I'm going to have sex for the sake of the project), though I'm not sure if you have to be an ECU student to borrow books there. However, I am sure that I can get it via ILL from the Joint Forces Staff College easily enough. Shall I make the request, or will you fetch it, Sturmvogel? bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they're the same. Sturm and I were looking at the same one at about the same exact time. Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, no, Munich would be lovely, but alas, that is a funding issue. ;) bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Naturlich, München würde geil sein! Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you "look at the book at UTEP that details the history of USS New Jersey and see if it favors one version or the other for decomissioning - TomStar81, 2010-01-30 (last part added by Buggie111)"? Baby steps first. Buggie111 (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

<embarrassed, sheepish grin> Yes I did. I also apparently didn't add that info to the article either. </embarrassed, sheepish grin> I'll handle that on Monday, assuming no one else took the book from the library (they shouldn't have, the last person to check it out (excluding my) was back in 98. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed some stuff, and I still have Jane's. Try and update it. Buggie111 (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Lemee guess. they checked out the book. Buggie111 (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jauréguiberry class battleship

I'm very much minded to delete this stub as it incorrectly groups together French battleship Bouvet, French battleship Jauréguiberry and French battleship Masséna. All of which differed significantly from each other in terms of armor and superstructure arrangements. Thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles Martel is tagged as contradict, so I think we could flick that stub into the trash. If the guys at FTC complain aobut it and "cherry-picking", we could get somthing put together. Buggie111 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Conway's 1860-1905 says it all when it says "five similar ships but with sufficient differences to prevent them being considered as one class." Nuke it, I say. Parsecboy (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuked/slaughtered/slain/deleted/whatever the correct term is ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's 'Nuked from orbit'. It's the only way to be sure. ;) - The Bushranger (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Captain! Their ship is escaping! Buggie111 (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, our torpedoes took her out just before she got away. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a little bit of irony for you...

...when that fleet of Austro-Hungarian battleships sailed across DYK yesterday, they all got between 1.3k and 1.8k hits each...while bombardment of Ancona, just there in their DYK as a related, non-bolded link, got 3.9k hits. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem with multiple-article DYKs, they tend to split up the page views. That the bombardment article got more hits than all of them makes sense though, probably a good number of the people who viewed the individual articles all clicked on the bombardment article, so it sort of funneled them back together. Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sound reasoning. I do agree that it is worth a chuckle though. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

All my work....for only 1.3-1.8 hits :( Oh well!--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 16:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, added together, they came out to a combined 8,000 hits. Not too bad (and qualifying for DYKSTATS)... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just want to note that a DYK Cla and I did this month, Japanese battleship Tosa, got 13,400 on its own. Kthnx. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And well-deserved, too! :D - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to give props to MBK for dilligently maintaining the DYKs on the portal. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How about we applaud MBK for all the grunt work he does. Without him, our lists would never get updated. Neither would MILHIST's or SHIPS'. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom? Do I hear some chevrons calling? bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, but if you take a look at MBK's award section you will notice a disproportionate amount of the awards he has received have come eihter from Roger Davies or from me. Not that I mind adding my name to another award for MBK, but in the interest of autographing perhaps someone else would like to do the honors this time around. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that the regular chevrons can be awarded by anyone; I was thinking of the chevrons with oak leaves. Maybe he deserves them in addition to/instead of the ones I gave. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

MBK has already been awarded the Chevrons w/Oak Leaves, so her would be ineligible to receive them again. Also, as he is a coordinator at the moment is would be ineligible to receive them until such time as he left office. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good job, Bahamut, he deserves something for all the work he does. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm proposing that we rename his account to User:OMT Bot. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Greek Mississppi class

We've got two of them, Greek battleship Kilkis and Greek battleship Limnos. Either we redirect their U.S. articles there, or redirect them to the U.S. ones. Thoughts? Buggie111 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The ships were in the Hellenic navy far longer, so if you feel the need to merge the articles the American names should probably be the redirects. Still, the current system is fine as well according to WP:SHIPNAME (although the articles could do with some expansion) Yoenit (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Include or declude?

Russian battleship Petr Velikyy (1872). It looks like a duck, but I'm not sure I hear quacking. Does it qualify, or is it more a CDS type? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Too early, it's an ironclad not a pre-dreadnought. The ironclads will have to be their own special project at some point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Hughes compound armour comprising 22 inch of wood sandwiched between two 7 inch wrought iron plates" Wooden armor? I think that defines it more as an ironclad than a battleship. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Titan's Cross?

I've been thinking about this for a few days now so I decided I would share this with the rest of you: As large as our special project is, we could probably stand to have our own award to recognize membership participation. I was thinking we could call this the Titan's Cross, and do like we do with the A-class articles and have the award upgrade as people clear certain milestones. What do you guys think about doing something like this? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, though I'm not exactly sure how to structure it. One (elaborate) way would be have a bronze star or cross (x class) for x number of GAs, increasing in grade for the number, then a silver star for A-class, increasing the same way and a gold star for FAs, etc. And perhaps the first award should be for a relatively few articles, increasing for the higher grades as some dedicated (if not twisted) souls could conceivably write forty or more articles. Maybe something like 3-5-7, etc.? Or maybe we could use more of the standard awards that you listed earlier, that nobody seems to have used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it really seem to be a conflict of interest to ask us about an award that would likely be awarded mostly to ourselves?

In any case, a progression system seems overly complex given the number of participants (even assuming a few recipients outside the project membership). Perhaps just one or two for consensus-decided recognition? And no, I'm not just saying this because I'm utterly useless at GAC, ACR, and FAC! bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I made a draft: http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9526/titancrossgold.png Comments? bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I kinda like that design. And that's not just because Parsec and I would likely earn most of whatever we decide upon, if anything. But I'm more concerned to encourage the other members of the project to expand some articles, but I suspect that many do not have the time or resources to do so easily. Three or four of us worked together to help fill out Parsec's article on SMS Goeben when it was at ACR to help it meet the completeness criteria and that may be the way that some of us prefer to work. And that's great, but I'd still like to see more general participation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, somthing to influence me to write about French battleship stubs. Not really. I like the image, and think hat somthing like 1 class or 2 ship articles would be an appropriate incrament. Buggie111 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I like Sturmvogel's suggestion. FWIW, as a member of this operation, I support it.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh, me likely. Would two Featued Lists be enough to earn it? ;) ...which reminds me. FYI, I'm waiting on interlibrary loan for Conway's before tackling those two lists I've claimed any further... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So do we like my draft? I'll upload it in gold, silver, and bronze if we agree on the image. Or I can tweak it if anyone thinks it needs tweaking. bahamut0013^words_deeds 02:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The draft is good, and I have no objection with adopting it for the official special project award. Before we have the images uploaded I would like to ensure that we are in agreement to award this by consensus and not in a tiered setting, and would like to invite anyone with questions about this award to step forward. If anything remains unresolved, now is the time to address it so that when the images are uploaded we can move quickly to adopt them into our operation. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, let me just get this straight, the plan is to make a new medal (titans cross) and award this using a system similar to the current MH A-class medals.I support that, but will there also be a version which can be freely awarded to people outside the operation when they have helped you a lot on a battleship article? (titans barnstar?)Yoenit (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The rationale I had for making it consenus-based instead of tiered was precisely that: so we could recognize people outside of a rigid matrix. We can still have the three degrees of the award this way as well. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Yoenit—I would like to be able to award it to people outside the project who come out of nowhere to save a FAC. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Or aFAR. Buggie111 (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hood article vs Admiral-class BC article

I've started work on the Admiral-class BC article in preparation for taking on the Hood article. I plan to move most of the detailed characteristics to the class article as I've done in my other BC articles, but I'm not sure exactly what should be retained given that Hood is a fairly popular article and I suspect may need a little more detail than I normally provide in my ship articles. What would y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are understating it there, but consistancy is key. I think perhaps referring to the class several times instead of shared statstics would get the point across to editors who might want to duplicate content simply because the Hood was very notable. bahamut0013^words_deeds 02:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So you think that I should write it like normal, but provide a main|Admiral class BC reference (whatever they're called)? I generally don't do that on ship articles as I figure the one link that I provide to the class article suffices, but...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, I think. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

HMS Warrior

Having just picked up yet another book on HMS Warrior (1860), I've once more found it referred to as a battleship. I know this is subjective description, but I've been seeing this quite a bit lately. As I understand it, Warrior (being a single gun deck) was technically a frigate, but being such a revolutionary warship (and the largest of her time) is now considered by many to be not only a battleship, but the world's first battleship. In fact I think this was part of the logic behind saving and restoring her, as she was considered the country's last surviving battleship. The term battleship seems to have been retrospectively applied in this case, and I was wondering where that would put it within your project. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, it smells more like a Ship of the line than a battleship. But applying our litmus test of guns, armor, and size, it seems it might qualify the definition. What kind of verifiable reliable sources are calling it a battleship? bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically, it was an armoured frigate, using the terminology of the period. However this nomenclature evolved over time as wooden, steam ships of the line, also known as steam battleships, were replaced by armoured ships with only one gun deck. But all such ships fall outside our purview as we only go back so far as the earliest pre-dreadnoughts around 1882. At some point I'll think up a fanciful name for what will be the Ironclads Project and focus on them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) ::To hand I've got this and this (Winton has a wealth of specialist naval books to his name and the Pitkin guide is produced in partnership with the HMS Warrior Preservation Trust as their official guide). Ian V. Hogg also refers to it as a Battleship in several of his books on fortifications/naval guns etc... (don't have these on me today, but I'm pretty sure he does, will clarify if I'm wrong next week). There's also some books I don't have like this, this and this. Admittedly though there's probably an equal number of sources that describe it as an ironclad, and the official Warrior Preservation Trust website doesn't seem to use the term battleship much. Seems to be a bit of mix and match really, which is why I thought I'd ask. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There's also this (Winton again, produced in association with the Royal Naval Museum) which I think summarises the issue quite well; "...the original design concept was that she should be a frigate. Nevertheless, as built, Warrior was certainly the first ocean-going, iron-hulled battleship, in the modern sense of the word." (p116, italics are his). From memory Dan Snow also called it a battleship in the recent BBC documentary The Empire of the Seas. Its the retroactive thing again, but if theres an official start date for this project, that covers the matter quite well! Ranger Steve (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Tell the truth, I'm not much interested in what others call it as I know perfectly well what it is; I just have a small problem in getting the rest of the world to agree. I haven't seen those books by Winton, but I've got one you didn't show by Lambert, [11], which is more substantial than any of the others that you listed except the Wells book, which I also didn't know about. I've got the Brownlee as well, so I'm a little bit lacking in the post-reconstruction history, but that's easily done whenever I get around to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Much like the other recent discussions, the "duck test" (look & quack like a duck, call it a duck) is important, but then we tread that fine line between truth and OR. However, Sturmvogel's point hits home that it fits more comfortably under the scope of an ironclad than OMT. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can't remember any of the signage on board Warrior referring to her as a 'battleship' when I visited her in 2006. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, they don't even use signs now, it's all audio guide (which I can't comment on). I'm not fussed about this but just thought I should bring it to your attention. As always we are bound to reflect what reliable sources say, but if your project has a start date, that sorts it out quite neatly (rather than simply focusing on the generic term battleship). You might want to think about stating it somewhere though, and also consider renaming this article. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'd consider the article name entirely inappropriate as battleship was already being used in lieu of ship of the line already. But I see your point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, this project covers just the "typical" pre-dreadnoughts from about the mid-1880s up through the last BBs of the 1940s. All of the various older ironclad warships (like turret ships, coastal defense ships, armored frigates, etc.) that are sometimes referred to as battleships aren't within our scope. Parsecboy (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Tagging each of the five b class criteria in notes?

I was wondering if we could follow Normandy and Great War Centennial in their tagging of articles as :

4 of 5 for B, references failed

...or somthing like that. Since I'm working on torpedo boats as of now, it would take me a long time to redo this page. Thoughts? Buggie111 (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. How is this different than the B-class assessment? You can do your own assessments of existing articles. It's just considered bad form to do your own if they deserve a B.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean that, since articles like USS Washington (BB-56) are much more closer (4 out of 5) to B than Connecticut class battleship (I'd say 2 or 3 out of 5), but on the project page, they read the same: Start. This would help better identify the ones closer to B/ones needing support without looking at each talkpage. Buggie111 (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, but I'm not really concerned about it. I have my own standards for each of the criteria and they may not match with somebody else's assessment. Besides, I pick ships to work on based on the sources I have on hand and how much I like the topic. I did most of the Italian pre-dreadnoughts just to get rid of the red links, but haven't pursued them because I only have one source that covers them and I'm not a big fan of pre-dreadnoughts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

While MILHIST doesn't use C-class, Ships does. I see no reason not to tag articles as C-class if they've been assessed as such, because this project is an improvement drive and this lets us know the specifics of which article need improvement most. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the point. All start class battleship articles I have seen meet criteria 4 and 5 and except Connecticut class battleship also criteria 3, but even in that case it is 10 seconds work to make it meet C-class criteria (which is criteria 3,4,5 of B-class). It would just mean that all the current start-class articles would be assesed C-class instead, with no distinction made on the amount of content they have. Yoenit (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Thanks. Buggie111 (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413)

Is USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413) being included in this project's scope? She was, after all, know as "the destroyer escort that fought like a battleship". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.179.91 (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

She won't be in the first phase, as she's not a battleship, but qualify for the fifth (Misc.). Feel free to expand her anyways, or any other article under our scope. You'd be the first IP to join! Buggie111 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, not strictly under scope, but would make a good misc article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 01:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Phase V...

I give you this. Now minus Outrageous, Curious and Spurious given their (well-deserved!) adding to the main project. A question along those lines, would the article on LLCs I'm fiddling with necessarily be a duplicate/fork of Courageous class battlecruiser? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Depends what you're covering. Take a look at the class article and see. Need to emphasize Fisher's belief in speed being paramount a bit more, but the basics are there. Oh, and if anyone's got any leads as to the interwar activities of Courageous and Glorious I'd be grateful as I've got very little to hand on either for that time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The bird farms made it in, anyway. I'd like to see the recruits put in there, Dreadnaught Hoax, maybe the U-boat dreanought hit A gift for WS. Also, I believe that we should launch phase 5 as a workgroup initiative, as:

• A: It has less and more varied work
• B: I does not really impead the flow of the FT making of 1.
• C: It will encourage others to join, like Bushranger's friends at WP:AIRCRAFT

Thoughts? Buggie111 (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds cool to me. ;) Also, feel free to add anything there, I don't mind a bit! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Scope

Seems there has been a lot of confusion lately about what articles are in our scope. To solve this problem, I've developed an application to help with this. Simply ask yourself "is this article about a battleship?" and then begin using the custom-made, user-friendly interface. bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

baha's OMT Scope Application

...I love it. :D - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your are getting a barnstar of humor for that. Actually, I think a thing sort of like WP:AW could work. Buggie111 (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, the bit about me writing a DYK... -MBK₀₀₄ 03:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I just got that one also... Buggie111 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I didn't realize Tom and I disagree so much. :P Good job bahamut, I needed a good laugh after a shitty shift at work. :D Also, re MBK writing a DYK (which happens to rhyme, congrats on that): will it happen? It's the $64,000 question. ;) Just kidding man. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you guys tend to agree, but it's funnier this way. Plus, "Sturmvogel" is too long to fit in the triangle. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I just realized that I used three emoticons in three sentences. Must've been tired last night, lol. Maybe we ought to make Sturm change his name. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I know a 'crat.... bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Help

I'm working with net sources for Iowa class battleship, I've done some tweaking with the missile section, but I need someone good at conversions to straighten out the ranges I added in the section since they are all a little off and need to be brought into uniformity with the rest of the article's conversion style. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. BTW, I've given up on abbreviating inches unless space is critical, like perhaps the infobox. Abbreviating it saves two whole letters on the screen, while forcing me to type eight more telling it to abbreviate and forces my hands off the key board to hit the nbsp link with my mouse. It's just not worth the time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone uninvolved with the recent updating of this Iowa article reassess it? If its B-class, then we can push on to GA, and that will keep our FT featured. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, at a glance the "Reactivation potential" section still needs to be updated (where did that tag go?) and the "Popular culture" stuff needs to be cited to works which discuss their role in culture—to generalize "Such scenarios usually feature the battleships in naval gunfire support missions for U.S. or NATO personnel" from a video game and a (good) book is, in my view, an problematic use of inductive reasoning. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

To be brutally honest what we can do to avoid the problem is just remove the section altogether and then nit-pick on it until we get to a place where we feel that the section is cited enough for inclusion. Ideally, we would add additional citations behind the two already there; however, I for one am willing to adopt any particular method as long as it works. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Captains for the USS Indiana (BB-1)

While rewriting the article for the US first real battleship I noticed that while the first two captains (Robley D. Evans & Henry Clay Taylor) have their own page (propably because they had ships named after them and are thus included in the DANFS), information on later captains (Francis W. Dickins, William H. Emory and no doubt several more after 1906) is very scarce. Doesn't the navy have some kind of register for this stuff? If not, should they be included based on news articles mentioning them? Are they in fact notable enough to get their own article in the biography phase of the project? Yoenit (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, biographies... finally, something I can contriute to. :)

For the mostpart, I interprete WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:MILPEOPLE to require more than just mere command. For OMT's purposes, I figure that they need to either command a very significant vessel (BB-1 might qualify for the first few captains) or naval unit, command a vessel/unit during a significant action (such as a notable battle or operation), be significantly decorated for thier actions aboard a ship within our scope (i.e. MOH, NC, VC, or equivalents; I know some people disagree with me on the NC), or some other honor (like having a ship named for them).

To answer your specific question, I think that we would need more than mere command of BB-1 years after its launch to satisfy notability requirement, even if thier commands did get them some media notice (for comparison, the commander of an Army National Guard regiment might be mentioned in some of the local newspapers, but still doesn't meet notability requirements). Have these captains done anything else of note? I'd guess not, because they'd probably already have articles if they did... Also, the Navy does keep significant records on most every officer, especially captains of vessels, but only a fraction of them are publicly available. You could request copies of thier service records, but then, can you adequetely reference those? If you publish it yourself, then we run into some murky waters about COI and OR.

So in general, I'd say no, we probably don't need to create articles for them. You have to consider that references are thin and the articles will likely not get past stub- or start-class. However, a list of captains on the ship's article would not be a bad idea at all. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)